One must have on board the aircraft all the equipment required by the
regulations.

.... and I contend that the aircraft I described is =not= equipped for
IFR flight according to the regulations, tuna sandwich notwithstanding.
You seem to disagree. I don't understand why. Perhaps it's just a
limitation of my pea brain, but I don't know how to navigate in IMC
using only a tuna sandwich (although I do know how to navigate with
(say) a VOR =and= a tuna sandwich. I must have been asleep during the
tuna portion of my ground school.

But I am curious. Which regulations refer to the equipment required
"inside controlled airspace outside of radar coverage"?

The regulation (quoted here many times) that says one must have
navigation equipment appropriate to the navigation system being used.
In a radar environment you could argue that radar vectors are the
navigation system being used, and I won't waste time arguing that. Nor
will I argue about whether certain rules apply outside of controlled
airspace. I would imagine that the requirements are =at least= as
strict inside of controlled airspace in a non-radar environment, and
that's what I'm aiming at.

So, while it is not illegal to fly with a tuna sandwich, it is (AFAIK)
illegal to fly (outside of an emergency) in controlled airspace in a
non-radar environment without navigation equipment, irrespective of the
presence of a tuna sandwich. You =seem= to disagree (probably just for
effect) but won't come out and say it point blank.

So... yes or no... do you believe it is legal to launch and continue IFR
flight in US controlled airspace in a non-radar environment outside of
an emergency in an aircraft that is equipped for IFR flight except for
navigation equipment, and in addition, has a tuna sandwich intended for
for navigation use?

And can you point me to a tuna sandwich approach to any airport in the US?

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.